IMO, it's all about narrative and what is deemed "acceptable" discourse. So, I think any way we push the window open is a good thing, and ultimately a good strategy. No, this is not going to be approved by SCOTUS. That doesn't matter. That same issue has certainly not stopped the left's "long march." It's considered a minor obstacle b/c …
IMO, it's all about narrative and what is deemed "acceptable" discourse. So, I think any way we push the window open is a good thing, and ultimately a good strategy. No, this is not going to be approved by SCOTUS. That doesn't matter. That same issue has certainly not stopped the left's "long march." It's considered a minor obstacle b/c they know it's a battle for narrative control and what society deems "acceptable" beliefs, which then leads to policy. Time to go on offense.
Our question should be: what's the furthest "right" position we can seed into society, to set the right boundary of the window as far right as possible? (But also, because we live in a pluralist society, the "extreme" voices on the right also need to be heard and considered. They've been silenced my entire life.) We certainly hear enough from those on the left, which is why our window currently extends from center-left (big gov't and high taxes) to far-left (institutionalized anti-white racism and calls for "socialized" everything).
As for serious or not - that is within the minds of those putting it forward. I suspect they are serious. (As it turned out the leftists chanting "defund the police" were actually serious.) I know us attacking them from our own side doesn't help move society's mental model rightward.
School choice is a good example of what I'm trying (poorly) to say: we've been trying for decades to get choice and vouchers, but it hasn't worked. Why? IMO, because there was nothing to the right of it being offered. So, it has been taken as the "right-most" starting point - the view of the "right wingers" - which means any society-wide negotiation by definition moves to the left from that position. That is why it's gained little-to-no traction despite 60+ years of costly, abject failure of the public school system.
The way I see it, societal level arguments aren't won with reason and logic and seriousness. People are emotional and moral animals, not rational animals. So, we have to make bold, sometimes ridiculous claims - or at least support the right to be heard for those who do - in order to shake up the status quo. We need the people furthest to the right to have a voice or we will always be arguing from the center, at best. Then, negotiate to the solution we actually want.
Final example: 8 years ago Trump said "close the border and build a wall," and people gasped in horror. The avg person said things like: we're not China or Berlin! That's racist! We should have an open border and offer asylum! And so on. He opened the window to an "extreme" view. His opposition overreacted to that. Now, 8 years later, 73% of the country wants the border closed.
I love your comments, RU, and I agree with virtually everything you say, but thanks to the nutty leftists and their trans ideology, and also to Grandma Garland and his Stasi calling angry parents attending school board meetings domestic terrorists, the school choice movement is doing much better these days. Imho far too few families take advantage of the possibilities provided by laws such as Florida's and other states', but I do think Covid helped open people's minds to the notion of other modes of schooling; one of its many silver linings, for those not killed or maimed in the interim.
It's a good point, and you know I always appreciate your views! I guess that I would read that as some parents voicing an "extreme" and "unacceptable" view, the Establishment PTB overreacting and freaking out, resulting in a societal move to the "right." (Similar to the dynamic with Trump and the border.)
So, in a way, it was those emotional and sort of Quixotic actions that led to some traction finally being gained, not rational policy / economics arguments that defined past efforts to push choice. They forced the window open with an emotional appeal. I think having someone to the right of them can only help them, even if only as the new "unacceptable" position.
Yes; it was "it's gained little-to-no traction despite 60+ years of costly, abject failure of the public school system" to which I was responding. It hadn't, I agree; but now it has. I have often thought that MLK Jr's, positions were more acceptable to people because there was a Malcolm X (though his views changed not long before his untimely death).
IMO, it's all about narrative and what is deemed "acceptable" discourse. So, I think any way we push the window open is a good thing, and ultimately a good strategy. No, this is not going to be approved by SCOTUS. That doesn't matter. That same issue has certainly not stopped the left's "long march." It's considered a minor obstacle b/c they know it's a battle for narrative control and what society deems "acceptable" beliefs, which then leads to policy. Time to go on offense.
Our question should be: what's the furthest "right" position we can seed into society, to set the right boundary of the window as far right as possible? (But also, because we live in a pluralist society, the "extreme" voices on the right also need to be heard and considered. They've been silenced my entire life.) We certainly hear enough from those on the left, which is why our window currently extends from center-left (big gov't and high taxes) to far-left (institutionalized anti-white racism and calls for "socialized" everything).
As for serious or not - that is within the minds of those putting it forward. I suspect they are serious. (As it turned out the leftists chanting "defund the police" were actually serious.) I know us attacking them from our own side doesn't help move society's mental model rightward.
School choice is a good example of what I'm trying (poorly) to say: we've been trying for decades to get choice and vouchers, but it hasn't worked. Why? IMO, because there was nothing to the right of it being offered. So, it has been taken as the "right-most" starting point - the view of the "right wingers" - which means any society-wide negotiation by definition moves to the left from that position. That is why it's gained little-to-no traction despite 60+ years of costly, abject failure of the public school system.
The way I see it, societal level arguments aren't won with reason and logic and seriousness. People are emotional and moral animals, not rational animals. So, we have to make bold, sometimes ridiculous claims - or at least support the right to be heard for those who do - in order to shake up the status quo. We need the people furthest to the right to have a voice or we will always be arguing from the center, at best. Then, negotiate to the solution we actually want.
Final example: 8 years ago Trump said "close the border and build a wall," and people gasped in horror. The avg person said things like: we're not China or Berlin! That's racist! We should have an open border and offer asylum! And so on. He opened the window to an "extreme" view. His opposition overreacted to that. Now, 8 years later, 73% of the country wants the border closed.
I love your comments, RU, and I agree with virtually everything you say, but thanks to the nutty leftists and their trans ideology, and also to Grandma Garland and his Stasi calling angry parents attending school board meetings domestic terrorists, the school choice movement is doing much better these days. Imho far too few families take advantage of the possibilities provided by laws such as Florida's and other states', but I do think Covid helped open people's minds to the notion of other modes of schooling; one of its many silver linings, for those not killed or maimed in the interim.
It's a good point, and you know I always appreciate your views! I guess that I would read that as some parents voicing an "extreme" and "unacceptable" view, the Establishment PTB overreacting and freaking out, resulting in a societal move to the "right." (Similar to the dynamic with Trump and the border.)
So, in a way, it was those emotional and sort of Quixotic actions that led to some traction finally being gained, not rational policy / economics arguments that defined past efforts to push choice. They forced the window open with an emotional appeal. I think having someone to the right of them can only help them, even if only as the new "unacceptable" position.
Yes; it was "it's gained little-to-no traction despite 60+ years of costly, abject failure of the public school system" to which I was responding. It hadn't, I agree; but now it has. I have often thought that MLK Jr's, positions were more acceptable to people because there was a Malcolm X (though his views changed not long before his untimely death).